Featured

Now that we are in the holiday season, take a look at the variety of programs offered at a branch near you! Take the kids to a storytime with Santa, watch A Christmas Carol live, prepare for holiday meals, and much more.

You are here:

SOPA

November 28, 2011

Fair use or copyright infringement? This question has filtered down from Capitol Hill, to the corporations, and all of the way down to the layperson looking for information on the Internet. The debate over the Stop Online Piracy Act is getting to be a hot topic, one that has the potential to completely alter the way we perceive the boundary between free speech and fair use. This bill is targeted at cracking down on online copyright infringement.

Advocates praise how it would provide more targeted protection for the copyright holder and their intellectual property. The law puts into effect a process by which to limit access to sites known for online piracy. It also changes the act of streaming copyrighted material to a felony, and provides immunity to providers that proactively take action against sites recognized for their piracy.

On the other hand, the opposition views this bill as a form of censorship. Recently, Mozilla joined other big-name internet companies such as Google and Facebook on this side of the argument. A copy of the letter that they wrote to Congress can be read on the Mozilla blog. This side sees the limitations as limiting to the freedom in cyberspace, leaving only the lawful abiders to pay the price while the pirates will find ways to continue their unsavory conduct regardless. They believe that the current standards of the DCMA are the most effective language proposed to date.

Either way, the answer to this burning question is still yet unanswered. When the bill goes up for review, it is unclear where the vote will go December 15th.

Comments

So long as credit is given to the original artist, writer, thinker, producer, or other source of origin, I don't understand the big deal. As long as there are highly advanced tech programs that allow the ripping and editing of digital media, the laws will be broken. The issue lies within the integrity of the user to be honest. If only a small percentage of these "pirates" would realize how angry they would be with others if they were not properly compensated for their services, ideas, or products. However, the government has a very cut-and-dried view which fails to allow for flexibility in views towards a specific scenario and is far more stereotypical than any one person could hope to be. (What happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?) Finally, let's remember the days of free radio and television. We do still have a few rare specimens in this day in age that truly are into their passions solely for enjoyment, not simply for a payday.

As Google would say: "Don't Be Evil." We don't need to be "protected." Concerned parents can utilize filters on their personal computers if they so choose-or even better, take an active interest in the internet browsing activities of their children.

Even if the bill passes though, people will find a way around adhering to its regulations. There might have been a time when the internet was police-able, but that time has passed. It's too big.

And one more observation: while copyright is an important concept, it can be taken too far. When a doctrine discourages use of information, it's doing more harm than good.